Can you articulate? If not, your ideas rest in the flotsam of words. If so, you can retain and create believers.
If you can articulate your idea well, you are half-way toward convincing your listeners. Particularly if your language is rhythmic, evangelical, and with a poetic song, you can touch both the innocent and the ignorant.
Intellectuals of note have these qualities. They can articulate well whatever they believe. Their language intoxicates and incites. It convinces without depth. It convinces without operational reality. It pursues justice only in your mind. This is different from the demagogue, where fear is the principle currency of their debate.
So, is intellectualism the same as articulation-ism?
The intellectual appeals often to morality, to equivocation (meaning things they don't understand is reduced to things we all can understand. They really do what we do. We may not know the technicals but we know their method.)
Intellectuals use humane socialism in constructing their equivocations. Mantras: It is the right thing to do. Surely, you want to be on the right side of history.
Intellectuals use division. The wage war against their opponents, such as class warfare (they keep you outside), economic warfare (they have more-you have less), power warfare we will level the field), to support their case. It is actually a form of elitism. That is, we understand them and how they work. Maybe not details. We are the intelligentsia and we know best what is for the public good.
If I was such an intellectual, I would create an economy where only the rich clearly benefit, then decry those beneficiaries as social pariahs. This is easy to do. Simply create economic conditions where the wealthy are advantaged, in the name of preserving the economy and jobs, or the market and currency.
Intellectuals form a dogma of restriction. Namely, they restrict entry and other ideas regardless, unless they support the dogma.
Their principle tool is word-ful articulation.
They love the moral high ground upon which they prefer to sit. They use every device to oppose others, not in agreement, with nasty tactics, citing their higher morality to justify.
They cling to what "should" be true in the face of what is true.
They have the flavor of religious zealots.
Opponents are denigrated as being immoral, or stupid They, and only they, have found the pathway to perfection.
Their pathway often assumes mankind is a different or should be a different species. Yet, their behavior in the face of obstacles is as base as those they oppose.
Example. The engineer may say, "All green tree frogs should be kissed often to alleviate their sense of alien-ization from the frog community." Nobody listens. However, the expressions of concern go as follows: "All green tree frogs, victims of centuries of social and economic abuse within the frog community, need our love and consideration and the feeling they belong, regardless of their class and impoverished conditions, and should be kissed at every opportunity. Moreover, the whole community should provide funds toward this aim and deny all green tree frog derogatory language. Kissing should be adapted and mandatory by all agencies to help these severely distressed frog citizens." You can't help feel a little sympathy for these innocent creatures. Sure, the frogs say, Let's afford some $$ to help them. They soon believe their own calls. It's all in the language, after all.
Knowing how to use the language, and how to articulate, is pure power.
If you can articulate your idea well, you are half-way toward convincing your listeners. Particularly if your language is rhythmic, evangelical, and with a poetic song, you can touch both the innocent and the ignorant.
Intellectuals of note have these qualities. They can articulate well whatever they believe. Their language intoxicates and incites. It convinces without depth. It convinces without operational reality. It pursues justice only in your mind. This is different from the demagogue, where fear is the principle currency of their debate.
So, is intellectualism the same as articulation-ism?
The intellectual appeals often to morality, to equivocation (meaning things they don't understand is reduced to things we all can understand. They really do what we do. We may not know the technicals but we know their method.)
Intellectuals use humane socialism in constructing their equivocations. Mantras: It is the right thing to do. Surely, you want to be on the right side of history.
Intellectuals use division. The wage war against their opponents, such as class warfare (they keep you outside), economic warfare (they have more-you have less), power warfare we will level the field), to support their case. It is actually a form of elitism. That is, we understand them and how they work. Maybe not details. We are the intelligentsia and we know best what is for the public good.
If I was such an intellectual, I would create an economy where only the rich clearly benefit, then decry those beneficiaries as social pariahs. This is easy to do. Simply create economic conditions where the wealthy are advantaged, in the name of preserving the economy and jobs, or the market and currency.
Intellectuals form a dogma of restriction. Namely, they restrict entry and other ideas regardless, unless they support the dogma.
Their principle tool is word-ful articulation.
They love the moral high ground upon which they prefer to sit. They use every device to oppose others, not in agreement, with nasty tactics, citing their higher morality to justify.
They cling to what "should" be true in the face of what is true.
They have the flavor of religious zealots.
Opponents are denigrated as being immoral, or stupid They, and only they, have found the pathway to perfection.
Their pathway often assumes mankind is a different or should be a different species. Yet, their behavior in the face of obstacles is as base as those they oppose.
Example. The engineer may say, "All green tree frogs should be kissed often to alleviate their sense of alien-ization from the frog community." Nobody listens. However, the expressions of concern go as follows: "All green tree frogs, victims of centuries of social and economic abuse within the frog community, need our love and consideration and the feeling they belong, regardless of their class and impoverished conditions, and should be kissed at every opportunity. Moreover, the whole community should provide funds toward this aim and deny all green tree frog derogatory language. Kissing should be adapted and mandatory by all agencies to help these severely distressed frog citizens." You can't help feel a little sympathy for these innocent creatures. Sure, the frogs say, Let's afford some $$ to help them. They soon believe their own calls. It's all in the language, after all.
Knowing how to use the language, and how to articulate, is pure power.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.